Jonathan M. Richardson

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment on a mortgage and sought to dismiss the defendants' counterclaim as statute-barred.

However, the plaintiff failed to include the request to dismiss the counterclaim in its notice of motion.

Citing the need for active case management and proportionality, the court declined to dismiss the limitation period argument outright and instead ordered a timetable allowing the plaintiff to amend its notice of motion and the defendants to file responding evidence.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claims arising from his detention at the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre.

The court struck the claims against Her Majesty the Queen because the plaintiff failed to provide the mandatory 60-day notice under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, rendering the action a nullity.

The claims against the superintendent were struck for disclosing no reasonable cause of action in her personal capacity, and the Ministry and detention centre were struck as improper parties.

The plaintiff's cross-motion to consolidate two related actions was granted.

The plaintiff successfully brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement after the defendants resiled from it due to 'buyer's remorse'.

The plaintiff sought costs of the motion on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting the defendants' conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding and the motion was entirely unnecessary but for their actions.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $21,260.74, representing full indemnity.

The plaintiff moved under Rule 49.09 to enforce Minutes of Settlement signed at a pre-trial conference in a land ownership dispute over a disputed parcel described as a cattle path.

The defendants conceded a binding agreement existed but argued it should not be enforced because of alleged duress, mistake about the land to be conveyed, and misunderstanding as to finality.

The court rejected the allegations of duress and mistake, found the defendants were represented by independent counsel and later experienced buyer's remorse, and held the settlement was reasonable and would not work an injustice.

A final order was directed to issue on the Minutes of Settlement, and the defendants were ordered to remove vehicles or chattels from the parcel within seven days.

The applicant sought to add Controlex Corporation, the landlord of the respondent fitness club, as a respondent to her human rights application regarding accessible parking.

She also sought to amend her application to include new allegations of failure to accommodate occurring after the application was filed, and to amend the remedies sought.

The Tribunal granted both requests, finding that the allegations could support a Code violation against the landlord and that the amendments would not prejudice the respondents.

The parties brought competing motions seeking further documentary production in litigation concerning early termination of a commercial lease.

The landlord sought disclosure of the tenant’s corporate financial statements to assess claimed damages, while the tenant sought disclosure of the landlord’s rent rolls and leasing records to support its mitigation defence and counterclaim.

The court held that both categories of documents met the relevance test under the Rules of Civil Procedure notwithstanding commercial sensitivity.

Each party was ordered to produce the requested information, subject to the possibility of narrower agreement between counsel.

The court also directed the parties to update their discovery plan and consider involving accounting experts to streamline production and discovery.

Following a motion concerning prospective and retroactive spousal support, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant had been awarded interim spousal support of $7,000 per month retroactive to April 1, 2012.

The respondent argued that a prior offer to settle was more favourable than the motion outcome and should affect costs under Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules.

The court found the offer was not more favourable because it involved a lower monthly support amount and delayed payment of arrears.

Costs of $5,000 on a partial indemnity basis were therefore awarded to the applicant under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant father sought an order under s. 16 of the Divorce Act to have the parties' nine-year-old daughter transfer from a French-language school to an English-language private school with an extended French program.

The respondent mother opposed the transfer, arguing the child needed to maintain her French culture and stability.

The parties shared joint custody with an equal time-sharing schedule.

The court considered factors including the parents' ability to participate in education, the child's stability, cultural heritage, sibling relationships, holiday schedules, and academic performance.

The court found that transferring to the English-language school was in the child's best interests, as it would align her schedule with her sisters, provide smaller class sizes, and not significantly compromise her bilingualism or French culture.

The respondent, the wife of a notorious convicted murderer, intended to commence divorce proceedings and successfully applied for non-publication and sealing orders to protect her privacy and mental health.

Media organizations appealed the orders.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in law.

Applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test, the Court held that the respondent failed to provide convincing evidence that the orders were necessary to prevent a serious risk to the proper administration of justice, as the psychiatric evidence relied upon was based on unsupported assumptions about media harassment.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for defamation, intentional interference with economic relations, and inducing breach of contract arising from the peremptory removal of the respondent from a military aerospace consulting project.

The Court of Appeal clarified the elements of intentional interference with economic relations and inducing breach of contract, adopting the House of Lords' approach in OBG v. Allan.

The court held that unlawful means for intentional interference must be directed at a third party and not directly actionable by the plaintiff.

While the trial judge erred in using defamation directly actionable by the plaintiff as unlawful means, the court upheld liability based on a conspiracy against a third party and breach of contract.

The court also confirmed that inducing breach of contract requires an actual breach, not mere frustration.

The appeal was dismissed and the damages awards were upheld.